D.C.VERMA vs PRINCE DRY CLEANERS

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order 23rd March, 2002 passed by District Forum-IV, Nand Nagari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 690 of 2000 - entitled D.C. Verma v. Prince Dry Cleaners.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri D.C. Verma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he had given two coats for dry cleaning to the respondent M/s. Prince Dry Cleaners on 29th March, 2000. THE date of the delivery of those coats, after dry cleaning, was given as 2nd April, 2000. It was stated in the complaint that when on 25th September, 2000 the appellant approached the respondent for the delivery of the coats in question, the appellant was informed by the respondent that due to fire in his shop on 13th September, 2000, the clothes got burnt and as such the respondent was not in a position to deliver the same to the appellant. it was stated that thereupon the appellant requested for payment of compensation as the loss was caused due to the negligence on the part of the respondent. It was stated that the respondent did not agree to pay any amount. When the request of the appellant for payment of compensation for the loss sustained by him was not acceded to by the respondent, the appellant filed a complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 4,400/- towards the cost of those coats together with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental torture and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent it was stated that neither any cash memo had been filed by the appellant in support of the proof of the purchase of those two coats nor any proof regarding litigation expenses had been filed. It was stated that in the receipt issued by the respondent it was clearly mentioned that the respondent dry cleaner was not responsible for the loss or damage to the clothes after fifteen days of the date of delivery. It was stated that the appellant came to collect the clothes in question in September, 2000 i.e. after seven months. It was stated that the clothes in question were destroyed as a result of fire which took place in his shop on 13th September, 2000 as a result of short circuit. It was also stated that regarding the fire which took place in the shop, a report was lodged with the authorities of Police Station, Bhajan Pura, Delhi. It was stated by the respondent that the complaint, filed by the appellant, deserved to be rejected.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the appellant and Shri Shyam Lal, Proprietor of the respondent at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record it is not in dispute that the appellant Shri D.C. Verma had given two coats for dry cleaning to the Dry Cleaners, the respondent on 29th March, 2000. The date of delivery given by the respondent was 2nd April, 2000. The clothes, after dry cleaning, were not collected by the appellant on the due date or soon thereafter and it was on 25th September, 2000 that the appellant approached the respondent for the delivery of the clothes in question. It is also not in dispute that as a result of fire which took place in the shop of the respondent on 13th September, 20000, due to short circuit, the clothes, including the clothes in question, had been destroyed. Now the only question requiring consideration is as to whether in the given facts the appellant is entitled to any relief. The appellant, as already stated, in the complaint has claimed a sum of Rs. 4,400/- towards the cost of the clothes in question besides compensation and litigation expenses. The claim of the appellant has not been honoured by the respondent on the ground that in view of the conditions printed on the reverse of the receipt issued to the appellant, the respondent was not responsible for any loss or damage to the clothes after 15 days of the date of delivery. In other words according to the case of the respondent, the respondent, for the ''loss'' or ''damage'' to the clothes was liable only up to after fifteen days of the date of delivery which was 2nd April, 2000. The proprietor of the appellant during the course of arguments vehemently contended that as per the terms and conditions printed on the reverse of the receipt it was specifically printed that if the goods were not claimed within six months from the date of receipt, the respondent had the right to dispose of the same by selling the same. It was stated by him that in the present case the appellant himself was negligent and did not bother to collect the clothes in time and deliberately and intentionally approached the respondent after knowing the fact that the clothes had been destroyed as a result of fire which took place in his shop on 13th September, 2000. In our opinion, the above contention advanced by the proprietor of the respondent, in the given facts, is devoid of substance because in terms of the conditions printed on the reverse of the receipt the respondent was not liable for ''loss'' or ''damage'' if the delivery was not taken after fifteen days of the date of delivery or the goods were not claimed within six months from the date of receipt. In the latter event the respondent had a right to dispose of the clothes by selling the same. In the present case the facts are entirely different. The clothes in question were neither lost nor damaged. Even if the goods as alleged were not claimed, even then the respondent had the right to dispose of the same by selling the same which has not been done. In the present case it is not in dispute that as a result of short circuit there was an outbreak of fire in the shop of the respondent as a result of which the clothes of the appellant were also destroyed which decidedly amounts to negligence on the part of the respondent. In view of the above discussion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal, filed by the appellant is allowed and the order being impugned in the present proceedings is hereby set aside.

NOW coming to the question of granting relief to the appellant, the position is that the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 4,400/- being the cost of the two coats. On the basis of material on record it is apparent that the appellant had purchased cloth for having those coats stitched in November, 1999 and January, 2000. The same were given for the purpose of dry cleaning on 29th March, 2000 i.e. after being used for quite sometimes. Thus, if 50 per cent of the above amount is allowed to be paid to the appellant, the same, in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) to the appellant towards 50 per cent cost of the coats in question together with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. The above amount be paid by the respondent to the appellant within thirty days from the date of this order failing which the appellant would be at liberty to file an application under Sections 25/27 of the Act, as the appellant may be advised, for implementation of these orders before the concerned District Forum. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.